Westerfield Closings Set For Tuesday, 8-6-2002: More Revelations Continue "Out" Of Jurors Sight!

Court TV ^ | August 6, 2002 | Harriet Ryan

[FresnoDA]

Westerfield closings set for Tuesday

The defense for David Westerfield, left, opted not to call a last forensic witness, clearing the way for closing arguments Tuesday morning.

By Harriet Ryan
Court TV

SAN DIEGO — After two months and 116 witnesses, jurors in the capital murder case of David Westerfield will hear closing arguments Tuesday.

"We'll be ready to rock and roll tomorrow morning," Judge William Mudd told lawyers Monday.

Defense attorneys for Westerfield, who is accused of kidnapping and killing his 7-year-old neighbor Danielle van Dam, had considered calling a forensic anthropologist as their final witness. After weekend discussions, however, they decided to rest their case, defense lawyer Steven Feldman told Mudd.

The judge imposed no time limits on the arguments Feldman and prosecutor Jeff Dusek will make, and closings in the trial, which included 199 exhibits and weeks of complex forensic testimony, could stretch into a second day.

At the hearing Monday, Feldman made yet another attempt to have the panel of six men and six women sequestered during deliberations. He cited front page articles about the case in the local paper as well as an article about swinging in San Diego magazine.

"The land mines keep growing, Judge," he told Mudd.

As he had before, the judge denied the request and said he trusted the jury to follow his instructions about avoiding media accounts of the case.

Westerfield, 50, faces the death penalty if convicted of Danielle's slaying. The second-grader was abducted from her bedroom last February. Searchers found her naked body on the side of a road three and a half weeks later. Prosecutors claim Westerfield sexually assaulted and suffocated her, but the defense says forensic evidence indicates she was dumped after the defendant was under police surveillance.

Comprehensive case coverage

[John Jamieson]

Nancy Grace is spinning so fast, she's going screw herself right into the ground!

Note to Nancy, The jury is not listening to you and the rest us already know your "facts" are garbage.

[shezza]

Circumstantial evidence or direct evidence are to not carry more weight than the other.

Before inference to establish guilt may be proved, each fact leading to that inference must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

When two interpretations can be made for evidence, one pointing to guilt and one pointing to innocence, they must accept the innocent explanation, if both explanations are reasonable.

[VRWC_minion]

Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.

I stumbled across some scripture on the death penalty that puts Jesus's statement under a different but more interesting light.

According to Jewish law, not only was it required that their be two eye witnesses for death penalty offenses, the eye witnesses would have to be the first to stone the guilty party. I assume it puts an added burden on those testifying to be truthfull.

Now, think about Jesus's question in that context. What were the two eyewitnesses that accused her doing there while she committed adultery ?

[shezza]

Evidence submitted in case was for each limited purpose for which it was submitted and can only be considered within that limited purpose.

Evidence mentioned by witnesses that are inconsistent with other evidence mentioned within the trial may be considered as to the credibility of the evidence submitted.

(I'm typing too fast! LMK if anything doesn't make sense.)

Dog tracking is not sufficient by itself to infer guilt or innocence...must be other evidence to indicate guilt or innocence to corroborate dog tracking results. Must consider dog's experience, handler, etc.

Jurors are sole judges of credibility of witnesses.

[MizSterious]

I wish she'd lose her job over this, but I doubt it will happen.

[Lauratealeaf]

Wonder where Nancy Graceless went to law school? Regis Hair Salon?

[VRWC_minion]

That was not my statement, that was quote from weather guy link provided above.

[shezza]

May consider character, demeaner, bias, motives of witnesses.

[MizSterious]

I think it was at Cheerleader U. Pompoms, flips and occasionally a look at lawbooks.

[shezza]

A witness who is wilfully materially false in one area of testimony can be mistrusted and all other testimony by that witness may be mistrusted.

[shezza]

Cannot disregard testimony of a witness simply because of whim, personal bias, or desire to support one side over the other.

[Steve0113]

occasionally a look at lawbooks.

I doubt that.

[winodog]

I have been on vacation for over two weeks and am catching up. I saw where someone mentioned there is a sand a gravel pit closer to where the body was found then the golf course.
A golf course is going to be cooler then the open desert, therefore the temps recorded there will be lower.
Most sand companies have to meet strict building codes to make sure the sand is "good stuff". Bad sand used in mortar or concrete will be detected when tests are run after the block has been laid or concrete poured. If sand is inferior all that work has to torn out.
So sand companies have very good records. I would bet they know the temps high and lows and keep very effeciant records. That has been my experiance in the past.
Also if the low is 30 or 32 degrees the insides of a body will freeze. When we pour concrete in a footing (surrounded by dirt except on the top, we do not have to worry about the concrete freezing because the dirt on the sides acts as a blanket.The top might freeze but the temp must stay at 32 for more then a day to make much difference.
Therefore I would doubt that the freezing temps the hang DW crowd makes a big deal out of would make any difference inside the body, just on the outside. Certainly not with a inch or two of "covering".

[shezza]

Generic statements about statements, admissions, whether or not defendent chooses to testify... yada yada yada.

[MizSterious]

Just the covers, Steve, and the pictures, if there are any. :)

[shezza]

Statements made by defendent not while in court should be viewed with caution.

[juzcuz]

Yep----Spritual Wars...wickedness in High places.

[MizSterious]

Good info, winodog! I hadn't made that distinction.

[shezza]

If you find that any fact has not been proved or has been disproved, that must be considered when evaluating the opinion of expert witnesses. You may disregard any opinion if you find it to be unreasonable. Hypothetical questions posed to expert witnesses are based on hypothetical facts and are based on that assumption. This does not that assumed facts have been proved. It is for you to decide from the evidence whether or not facts in a hypothetical question have been proved.